A Microsoft Veteran Embraces Open Source

John Markoff of the New York Times blogs about an interesting new self-published book by a former Microsoft employee:

Keith Curtis has just written a book about the future of software.

That in itself isn’t unique. More unusual is that Mr. Curtis, an 11-year veteran of Microsoft, the world’s largest software company, believes deeply that open source is the future of software.

And while he says he holds no grudge against his former employer, in the long run, the company “is toast.”

His book, “After the Software Wars,” was published last month by Lulu.com, a Web-based publishing service that makes it possible for Mr. Curtis to give the first 1,000 readers the option of downloading a free version of the book (590 people have already taken advantage of the offer) or purchasing a paperback version for $19.97 (so far he has sold 11 copies, five of which were purchased by his mom).

He takes a programmer’s approach in “Software Wars,” attempting to systematically build a case that software can help pave the way for a 21st-century renaissance in many fields ranging from artificial intelligence (cars that drive themselves) to the human journey into space (space elevators).

For Mr. Curtis, the strength of open source software, and why it’s the future, is all about leveraging our collective intelligence.

After he left Microsoft, he installed a copy of the Linux operating system on a lark. His world was turned upside down. He spent three years exploring the open source world — reading, attending conferences, looking at source code and talking to the rank-and-file members of the open source community.

Mr. Curtis says he’s not bitter about his time at Microsoft, but the world has moved on. “I loved working there, learned an enormous amount, made a few shekels, and enjoyed the privilege of working alongside many brilliant minds. Like many things in life, it was fun while it lasted.”

I grabbed an electronic version of the book (PDF format). Looks really interesting.

I've always wanted to believe in open source but I have had trouble locating what area of consumer tech that it is actually out in front on. If anything the world is moving away and towards the apple system of being even more closed off.

lotsa
Nothing, I still say choice is good.
And that has what to do with paying a guy to read his essay on why paying people is bad?
Really, can you please explain your thought process that led you to your odd conclusion?

I haven't read the book, "mikegalos" (and neither, I suspect, have you), but I did read Paul's blurb, and the linked article. Nowhere did I see the phrase, "paying people is bad". Maybe you did, but then again, you seem to see a lot of things that aren't there through your WinJihadist lenses.
Mr. Curtis seems to be saying that Open Source was his choice. For him, a good choice, and one he advocates for others. You seem to be against that choice.
Nowhere do I see any indication that the book is an anti-capitalist screed (or in your words, an "essay on why paying people is bad") that indicates no one should be paid for anything. But I guess it's easier for you to attack the messenger than consider the message.

I don't agree with Keith. I'm a fan of open source software, but I don't think it's "the future."
Development time for open source software is so incredibly long, that it never really pushes the envelope. just about every piece of open source software that I've seen is just an alternative to a commercial product on the market.

I loved the bit about why he left Microsoft:
"The amount I learned in my 11th year was much less than what I had learned in my first year, and the stock had become stagnant."
You just get the feeling that when the stock was doubling every couple of years he somehow managed to find things to learn.

lotsa
Really. The "open source movement" isn't anti-capitalist, it's anti-intellectual.
I'll repeat that since most people don't bother thinking it through: The "open source movement" isn't anti-capitalist, it's anti-intellectual.
There's no problem in "the movement" with investors making money off of FOSS, or sales reps or executives or marketing staff or ad agencies or the landlord or the power company or the ISP or the computer vendor or corporate "sponsors" or venture capitalists or, for that matter, the janitor.
The only people expected to "donate" their work "for the good of the community" are the people who actually create the product - the intellectual force behind the computer revolution.
Releasing products to the public domain could be considered "anti-capitalist". Releasing products as part of a GPL "Open Source" company is just "Revenge of the MBAs" on the geeks who were becoming millionaires when they felt that getting rich was the exclusive right of "business types".

rjohn05
Microsoft actually has huge amounts of open source software. Most of it is released under a modified version of the GNU license called Ms-PL that is fairly close to public domain and about as unrestricted as any license out there. (Much less restrictive than the GPL) The two Microsoft open source licenses (Ms-PL and Ms-RL) are described at: http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/licenses.mspx
The Microsoft Open Source page is at http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/
The Microsoft Open Source community page is called Port 25 and is at http://port25.technet.com/

The comment software seems to have eaten the link to the Microsoft Open Source licenses page.
Alternately, you can go to the Microsoft Open Source page and click on the Open Source License link on the left side menu.

If you want to get free advertising in the New York Times, especially from Markoff, you need to either bash Microsoft, or kiss Apple's ass and announce the superiority of all things Mac. I stopped reading that putz a long time ago, Pogue is a great writer and much more informative.

meason
To be fair, the first year at Microsoft is often an insane vertical learning curve and a lot of people who get hired don't make it through their first 12 months. After that, it gets easier.
Now, is year 11 that much different than year 10 that it prompts quitting? Hardly.
Does seeing a flat stock price with options that are underwater or close to it remove an incentive to stay for somebody who was just around for the "golden handcuffs"? Certainly.

whiplash
I know I'd love to get this guy's press agent.
How many people have written a book that no publisher bought? Tons.
How many of those people turned to a vanity press to publish? Lots.
How many of those people got the New York Times (and this blog) to publish an article on their vanity press book. Pretty much none.
Yeah. GREAT press agent.

Waethorn
Two items to your OT post:
1) Apple's statement is: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult. "
PLEASE, Mac people, do NOT read this as "install multiple antivirus utilities on your computer". Running more than one AV utility at a time tends to cause real problems. Note that one AV and one anti-spyware is OK since they do different things and don't fight each other.
2) It's interesting that in the poll in the ZDNet article, at this point in time, 20% have an AV, 19% plan to install an AV but 61% are saying that even with Apple saying "Install an AV utility" they are not going to.

"one AV and one anti-spyware is OK since they do different things and don't fight each other."
It depends on the antimalware vendors. Some pieces of malware are considered viruses by one, but spyware by another. Deciding on 2 different companies can leave you with "dead spots" where certain pieces of malware aren't detected by either product that you have installed. It's best to utilize a single-vendor solution for that reason, and to use software from a trusted vendor that properly tests and certifies their product.
Mike: Any plans on a Windows Live OneCare for Mac? LOL!

Has anyone, you know, *read* the book?
Don't. It reads like a screed from /. Yet and the same, the author doesn't scream against MS...it's Google that is the focus of his ire:
>>Probably 99% of the code on a typical server at Google is free software, but 99% of the code Google itself creates is not free software. In fact, Google is an extremely secretive and opaque company.
Even in casual conversation at conferences, its engineers quickly retreat to statements about how everything is confidential. A paper explaining PageRank, written in 1998 by Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, says, “With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic
realm.”
It seems they have since had a change of heart.<<

"Mike: Any plans on a Windows Live OneCare for Mac? LOL!"
Well, seeing how 60% of Mac users who read that article say they still won't install an antivirus, I'd say the market for a Mac antivirus is pretty small (40% of 3.5% of the computer market is 1.4% of the market)
It sounds like Apple will have to spend some of that half billion dollars in advertising to undo the "Macs are immune" meme they've been happy to profit from if they really do want their users protected. Or, maybe, they could write their own.

"Probably 99% of the code on a typical server at Google is free software, but 99% of the code Google itself creates is not free software. In fact, Google is an extremely secretive and opaque company."
I kind of wonder how much of their "own" development leads itself to "borrowing" ideas from free software and how willing they are to cover up the fact that they break the terms of the GPL....

I run Norton on both of my Macs at home...and always have. They are also behind a hardware firewall...hopefully correctly configured to protect all of the computers.
I would love to see OneCare for the Mac. MS did it right with that application. It does its job quietly and well.
Regarding open source...mikegalos, your first post is on the money...I am not anti open source, I just find it to lag way behind commercial software in almost every way.
--tayme

I run ClamXav on a couple of macs, and it seems to work fine and be fairly noninvasive. (I mean, I guess it works - it's never found anything amiss.) It's free and open source too. (See how I neatly tied the on-topic and off-topic segments of this thread together? It's a gift.)

@tayme
I agree as well, open source lags behind most commercial packages. But I also think Open source, for good or bad, is written by IT types for IT types. For example, I still can not get an easy install WiFi driver for my netgear wireless card.

Hi;
I found this article and decided to post a few comments:
I never argue that programmers shouldn't be paid. Most software today is written because there is a business need, not because of a need for a license fee. And license fees actually hurt the software biz. Look at the market for educational software. Where is the MS of that? Hardware companies will hire programmers to write device drivers, because their hardware is useless without it. I discuss all this in the Linux chapter, and even why books and music are different than software elsewhere in the book.
Development is faster in free software because it has less baggage.
I quit the company 4 years after the stock quit growing. After working in the wide variety of groups I worked in, and going from being a junior programmer to having seen a lot, I decided to do something else, and see what was going on in the outside world. Anyway, these issues are minor and MikeGalos just seems like a silly snark.
The free software movement is neither anti-capitalist or anti-intellectual. Software is a science, and science has long been presumed to be free, so that there are shoulders to stand on. I discuss this in the Free Software chapter.
I talk about MS's forays into greater openness and such, but it is really nibbling around the edges. And if MS adopted free software, they'd have to find a new source of revenue to fund their unprofitable businesses.
I don't have a press agent. John Markoff read the book, and we chatted a couple of times. It is 90,000 words, including what free software needs to do to have world domination. Maybe you could read it and see how it answers all of the common criticisms. I started my foray by thinking free software doesn't make sense.
Many people at MS have never tried Linux and learned what all I did.

"Look at the market for educational software. Where is the MS of that?"
www.broderbund.com
....and I might add that they've been "the MS of educational software" for years now.
"Hardware companies will hire programmers to write device drivers, because their hardware is useless without it."
Um....duh? If a hardware company doesn't understand that already, they don't have a prayer.
"The free software movement [isn't] anti-intellectual."
You mean as in intellectual property rights? Naaaah....just until you want to patent something. Argue that one with Stallman!
"Software is a science, and science has long been presumed to be free"
So is medicine in civilized countries - just ask DRWAM about that one. ;) What fantasy world do you live in?
As a writer of this book, what is your stance on Richard Stallman making 5 digit cash "bonuses" advocating the use of free software everytime he opens his lips???
You tend to interchange the terms "free software" and "open source" a lot. They are NOT mutually inclusive.
I will say this: The "free software movement" is full of contradictions and hypocrisy.

@mikegalos: "It sounds like Apple will have to spend some of that half billion dollars in advertising"
Oh please. Microsoft did that to try and improve the (correct) perception that Vista is a dog. Which it is. A tainted brand that people want to avoid. No wonder people cried out for MS to keep XP around as an option.

Dear Waethorn,
Broderbund is not the MS of educational software. I have asked a number of friends in different schools in different states and the only software they speak of is Office. Broderbund might be making enough money to sustain development, or just ship the same software year after year, but the fact that they charge is preventing it from being ubiquitous in schools. If wikipedia charged $50 to access it, would it have had all the contributors and built up the huge amount of info it has? MS can make money with Office and Windows, but most of the rest of the industry is starving and is in shambles.
I mention the obvious device drivers because people wonder why any programmers will ever write software, so I gave one counterexample. It is obvious to you, but not to MikeGalos.
Medicine is different from science. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. But are you arguing that medicine should be free and software should be proprietary?
BTW, I talk about software patents and biotech patents in my book. You can read those sections and see what you think.

Being free to the end user is totally different than being free. All governments that provide free medicine do is take a chunk of money from somewhere and ration.
And medicine is different from software. Services, even software services, are different from software. Software is bits of knowledge. Medicine is a service and a craft. And I envision a world where many software programmers getting paid, just as Doctors get paid. This is augmented by researchers, governments, foundations, students & volunteers.
I talk about this topic a lot in the Free Software chapter. Software is really a quite different "thing". Stallman makes a good point that free software, like a free market will take time for society to grok. I don't fully, and I've been thinking about it hard for 3 years.
But while we can all wonder about the motivations to write free software, we should remember it is already out there in quite large numbers. If you see an airplane fly by, you can wonder WHY someone would possibly be motivated built it, but you can't wonder that it someone must have. People here see the airplane, but don't believe their eyes.

Again, when anybody finds an FOSS company where the investors, sales reps, executives, marketing staff, ad agencies, landlord, power company, ISP, computer vendor, corporate "sponsors", venture capitalists and the janitor donate all their time and effort and funds "for the good of the community" feel free to let me know.
Until then, "open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind.

@mikegalos: "Until then, "open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind."
A "con game"? You're drinking too much of Microsoft's Kool-aid. Open source is a way to free yourself from the high Microsoft tax. Go and ask all the techies running highly successful companies using open source software and see whether they are making any money or not. YouTube? Google? Amazon? (And many more) are doing just fine by using open source development tools, utilities and operating systems. They are not buying in to the Microsoft tax.

Yes.
"Open source" is a con game. The fact that you can join in reaping some of the benefits of conning people doesn't change the equation.
Lots of people join in making money off of sweat shops and child labor, that doesn't change what they are.
Your argument is like saying that because a retailer makes more money by buying from a manufacturer that uses child labor, it's OK. After all. They made lots of money and they weren't the ones with kids chained to workbenches.
And, of course, it means that there's a disadvantage to everyone who doesn't participate. Guess you're equally opposed to the Apple tax, too. After all, they pay their programmers which cuts their profits.

@mikegalos: "Open source is a con game"? I think you may well be on your way to surpassing Paul in your outrageous punditry and fanboyism. You guys are well on your way to being a joke. In fact, you both jumped the shark a long time ago. That's why your commentary is seen as holding no weight.

This blog post is about a book, which goes into tons of detail on Mike Galos's latest objections. Presumably he's got his standard arguments against free software programmed into macros.
I never say that free software is only about people volunteering their time. It happens to be what builds Wikipedia, but it needn't be the case with software. Mike can insist that it would have to be that way, but that is not the case. I keep mentioning IBM.
The bottom line is that software will turn into a services business. If you've got a legal problem, you will hire a lawyer. If you've got a computer problem, or want support, you will hire a programmer, etc.
And I repeat again that by some estimates 75% of software is written at places like Merrill Lynch, etc. because there is a business need, not because of a need for licensing revenue. And that software is "free software" in the sense that presumably that other Merrill Lynch employees can read the code, download it as many times as they want, make changes to it, etc.
Another thing I've come to realize is how free software will also stimulate new demand for hardware -- which will be bought. A world of free software is a world of amazing hardware. Free software might hurt proprietary software companies, but it will help every other type of company.
I repeat my point that people here admit that the airplane exists, but don't believe it could possibly be flying, or it is about to crash "any day now". Yet Linux marketshare increases year after year, and it is just getting started.
I understand many of these arguments -- that was where I started.

@keithKu, I realise that free to the end user is different to free, which is why I hurriedly tagged that extra post on.
Anyway, whilst I don't agree with much of what you're saying, your book does sound interesting, and I may well pick up a copy.
There's no point entering into a debate based on preconceptions, now is there!

@gorath:
Hey, no problem. I just wanted to expand upon the health care topic. On another site someone argued that medicine should be free but software proprietary! I thought that was backwards. But I do think that governments and public institutions can be big sponsors of free software, like they are with medicine and other forms of research.
I think the book is interesting. It surely isn't the last word, but there is a ton of food for though. I explored many aspects of the computer industry in the two years I worked on writing it. Much has been written about free software before, but my book has quite a bit of new material, even for those very close to free software. For example, one chapter lists the remaining challenges for world domination.
I only made my comment about pre-conceptions because some here think the debate is already over and free software will always be a niche, but I think of the movement as just now hitting critical mass! I think the industry, and the world, could look very different in 5 years. We live in interesting times.
Regards

"I have asked a number of friends in different schools in different states and the only software they speak of is Office. Broderbund might be making enough money to sustain development, or just ship the same software year after year, but the fact that they charge is preventing it from being ubiquitous in schools."
It's not sold to schools, but the cost is extremely cheap for most of it's software, considering that it IS educational. Microsoft also charges for Office, and it's even more money than what Broderbund charges for their typical piece of software, but it is almost considered a requirement since most students that come away from school will most certainly see it day-to-day when they graduate. Broderbund charges less for their products than many other companies though. Their main customer base is end-users, not schools. And yes, they have many recurring products, but they also acquire many new products and have been expanding their product base steadily over the past years. They were once a very small independent gaming company in the 80's after all.
"Medicine is different from science."
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
"But are you arguing that medicine should be free and software should be proprietary?"
One isn't necessary for sustaining human life, so yes, I do - at least, according to your own understanding of your cookie-cutter terms (my ongoing argument about your comments). Software can be open-source and still cost money (a comment that you keep contradicting yourself with). Likewise, for-cost software can still be interoperable.
"And I envision a world where many software programmers getting paid"
Then you wouldn't stand a chance in a room with Richard Stallman.
For him, the idea is to get paid talking about software - you just can't get paid to make it.
"If you see an airplane fly by, you can wonder WHY someone would possibly be motivated built it"
And when was the last time a jet manufacturer released their engine manufacturing specs?
""open source" is a con game to get techies to stop taking well earned money for highly specialized and difficult skills while the less skilled and less educated continue to rob them blind."
My sentiments exactly.
"YouTube? Google? Amazon? (And many more) are doing just fine by using open source development tools, utilities and operating systems."
And when was the last time you saw Google's search engine tools, or Amazon's shopping cart software. Ya, I thought so. STFU!
"It happens to be what builds Wikipedia, but it needn't be the case with software."
Naaah....
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Now/en?utm_source=2008_wiki_i...
Welcome to the real world: people needing money.
"Another thing I've come to realize is how free software will also stimulate new demand for hardware -- which will be bought. A world of free software is a world of amazing hardware."
WTF?! Manufacturers of hardware often don't even support open-source software with their own hardware. It's all well and good that I can go and get off-the-shelf components, but support for open-source stuff is literally in the toilet. If I want some new motherboard, video card, or maybe some other doo-dad, I don't want my only means of support to be some basement script-kiddy in "the community" writing drivers for it.
"Yet Linux marketshare increases year after year, and it is just getting started."
It's been "just getting started" for the last 10 years now, and it's going nowhere fast.
"I think the industry, and the world, could look very different in 5 years."
Still waiting for "The Year of Desktop Linux", are we?

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More